Moto Truckstop: 21/02648/OAEA

Current Situation, as of 23.04.25

WPC initiated the legal intervention that questioned the lawfulness of the Inspectors decision to reverse the planning refusal at appeal. There was a ‘Pre-Application Protocol’ letter from WPC.

A ‘Statement of Facts and Grounds’ from WPC

Both of these were contested by Moto as an ‘interested party’.

There is now a ‘Summary of Grounds of Resistance’, on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)

WPC has now been joined by TMBC as an interested party in opposing the planning grant.

PINS and MOTO have both appointed KC barristers and replied to our ‘Facts and Grounds Statement’ so, it will end up in Court eventually. Interestingly, PINS KC takes the view that it is correct for Inspectors to consider the type of development when considering the Greybelt definition. By extrapolation architects could design Greybelt development and cut out the planners, clearly perverse. Moto KC says the Inspector did misunderstand the Grey belt definition, but got the decision correct so it doesn’t matter. (That reduces 4 pages of legal arguments down to one line) The fact that 2 KC Barristers cannot agree, makes the WPC statement that the Inspector misunderstood the Greybelt definition and as a result erred in law, seem more sustainable.

We await further information of the forthcoming process.

 

Section 288 Legal Intervention

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE – KING’S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, PLANNING COURT – AC-2025-LON-000898

KING’S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, PLANNING COURT

IN THE MATTER OF A STATUTORY REVIEW UNDER SECTION 288 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

BETWEEN:

WROTHAM PARISH COUNCIL –                                        Claimant

– and –

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING,

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT              Defendant

– and –

1. MOTO HOSPITALITY LTD
2. TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL   Interested Parties

Some background information by Cllr Pete Gillin

The Inspector determined that the 24-hour illuminated Truckstop beneath the Golden Nob English Heritage Viewing Point would not cause damage to the views from the National Landscape. To me that is somewhat perverse. However, we cannot question that decision as that was a ‘planning judgement’ one that the planning inspector is entitled to make. At this stage all we can question is whether in making her judgement, she has erred in law. In that light we must now consider her judgement re Judicial Review.

Ground 1 – Misinterpretation of NPPF Grey Belt Test

WPC contends that the Inspector should have asked if development in general, adjacent to the National Landscape and beneath an English Heritage viewing point, would be harmful to views from the Golden Nob. Instead, she determined that the Moto development in particular would not be harmful. Although, she conceded there were localised harm to the NL She made the Greybelt decision development specific, rather than land specific as it should be. This is a miss-interpretation of the Greybelt definition in the NPPF Glossary. Consequently, we contend that harm to the National Landscape policy assessment should have resulted in the site remaining Greenbelt and the proposal becoming inappropriate development in planning terms.

Ground 2 – Character and Appearance- The Inspectors Failure to Consider Lighting Columns.

The Inspector did not consider the impact of the very high lighting columns themselves, only the harm from light spillage. The Condition she seeks to impose does not restrict the height, footprint or other physical features of the columns.

Had the Inspector not erred, the outcome may well have been different. The impact on the character and appearance of the area was a key issue in the appeal, not just in its own right but also because of the duty under the newly amended CROW Act 2000. The Act now requires relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Given the Inspector’s finding that the proposal would not “fully accord” with this important duty, and that such a consideration attracted “great weight” in the planning balance, then finding additional landscape harm, the physical lighting columns themselves, may well have altered her decision.

Ground 3 – Flawed Interpretation of Department of Transport Circular 01/2022, a circular that defines the size and nature of Truckstops.

The extent of the need for the proposal was a central issue at the appeal. The Inspector stated in her Report as follows.

“The fuel station would be an essential part of the proposal and a mandatory requirement to comply with the Circular… I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is of the appropriate type to address the identified need for facilities on this part of the motorway network in Kent”.

The ‘mandatory requirement’ statement by the Inspector is manifestly wrong, the fuel station is not mandatory, nor is the overall size of the Truckstop.

 

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 9 and 10 January 2025.

Decision date – 13th February 2025 – Site visits made on 17 December 2024 and 14 January 2025  by S M Holden BSc (Hons) MSc CEng

Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) is granted for construction of a secure 24-hour truck stop facility for up to 197 HGVs incorporating fuel station; amenity building of up to 1100 sqm; creation of a new access to A20 via roundabout; landscaping and other associated works

https://wrotham-pc.gov.uk/news/moto-update/

 

23/00681/OAEA

Refused – 23 Feb 2024 – Then appealed at Planning Hearing – APP/H2265/W/24/3347410

 

21/02648/OAEA –  Land Part Of Wrotham Water Farm Off London Road

Refused – 05 Apr 2022 – Outline Application: Construction of a secure 24-hour truck stop facility for up to 200 HGVs incorporating fuel station; amenity building of up to 1100 sqm; creation of new access to A20 via roundabout; landscaping, and other associated works.